:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold Free Conference Calls every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time); excluding emergencies and national holidays.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

Soldiers Using Law to Restore Constitutional Gov't.

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

ChristopherART5
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday January 19th, 2012 3:59 pm MST

Soldiers Using Law to Restore Constitutional Gov't.

Postby ChristopherART5 » Wednesday February 1st, 2012 8:07 pm MST

After seeing the angst of soldiers watching civil government ignore the constitution, for some years now, I had an inspiration that was based in the soldier’s oath, to “defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic”. I realized that logically the military justice system must accommodate a soldier defending the constitution against a domestic enemy if the soldier is to do so constitutionally. Soldiers cannot be constitutional if they just start shooting. To do so would be both illogical and unreasonable.

On 1/14/2012, I wrote a draft titled: “Soldiers Application for Order of Inquiry Into Constitutionality of Civil Authority; Status Establishment of Lawful Military Authority” (omitted), the veterans I've showed it to love it; the soldiers were frightened by it. I've got some requests into attorneys that specialize in military law and am awaiting their responses. I'm hoping they have what it takes to at least provide an opinion, perhaps suggestions for venue and some precedent on aspects of it.

The other side of this is ours, the citizens. I've benefitted from a lot of knowledge from this site so submit this here for opinions. … I do believe there are many judges that are on our side, they might not be the ones getting assigned to cases citizens might file in a flanking action with soldiers in defense of the constitution by these means… . The one great advantage we have is we can work in the open with this, while those that caused the events of September 11, 2001 cannot.

The mention of 9-11 in this is fairly needed, and I can prove something that is earth shaking about the way civil government handled it; pursuant to title 18, part I, chapter 115 §2382, such proof was submitted to a US district court.

Said draft was based upon Article 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION:
Where at 10 they wrote:Punitive Articles
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who–
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority…
(3) Failure to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition.
(4) Failure to report a mutiny or sedition. Failure to “take all reasonable means to inform” and seeks venue in the Military justice system for binding, legal inquiry regarding what must be violations of,…
and on Article 106a. ESPIONAGE:
Where at (a) they wrote:(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, … (3) A thing referred to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, a violation of 18 USC CHAPTER 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 1506. Theft or alteration of record, 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations into sedition; or the creation of violence; concealed by misprision of treason; the usurping and overriding of civil authority that ordinarily provides constitutional civil authorization of lawful military authority in command of this Soldier.

This United States Soldier knows and can evidence such acts must include violations of espionage and is accordingly wondering what actions a soldier might take, in accord with law to seek a remedy.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Soldiers Using Law to Restore Constitutional Gov't.

Postby Admin » Friday February 10th, 2012 12:31 pm MST

:h: ChristopherART5:
We generally agree with your presentation; however, we also recognize why veterans would like the proposal and active military personnel might fear taking such actions. Veterans are free from the military command structure; however, acting military personnel are not; and, ones time in the military is usually benefitted by honoring command (even if the command is wrong). Further, progression through the military system is rewarded by both advancement in rank and choice of duty. The opposite is also true. Punishment can include anything from loss of rank to death. Thus, it is no wonder that active service personnel might be frightened by a proposal that required them to challenge command due to the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

Of course, the events of that day (evidenced by the remaining physical record, the missing (confiscated) evidence, the unanswered questions and the obvious cover-up) all point to the action being an inside Corp. U.S. job supported or inspired by the highest levels of Corp. U.S.’ powers of governance. Nonetheless, to date, no legal action has been sustained that succeeded in bringing the parties or the events to a reckoning. Thus, though turning to military personnel for such a challenge does make sense, the dangers of so bringing such an action remain; even though, military law requires military personnel to bring such actions; if they are aware of them.

The problems related to bringing such an action also stand in the way. For example: though any lame brained idiot can look at the facts of that day of destruction and murder and see that the facts that have been released to the public do not match the events of the day and that the available evidence of the truth has been confiscated and not made available either to the media or to the congressional review. Thus, there is significant evidence of corruption at the highest levels. So, to bring such an issue to justice one must find the parties responsible.

The bottom line: to act on the remedy you suggested, it is not enough to know that acts of mutiny, sedition or espionage have taken place; for there to be any cause for action regarding such acts, you have to be able to prove, with specificity, who the responsible parties are. The difficulty in bringing a successful action is then limited by the fact that all official capacities are essentially contractually created capacities; therefore, it is impossible for any official to violate the law. Thus, to contest the lawfulness of any official’s action, one must prove the party lending consciousness and physical capacity to the office acted unlawfully. Again, that requires knowing what the individually responsible party did and proving their actions beyond any reasonable doubt.

Again, you cannot lawfully withhold services based upon the mere allegation of mutiny, sedition or espionage; you have to be able to show who the guilty parties are.

You indicated: “Soldiers cannot be constitutional if they just start shooting.” However, soldiers are compelled to follow orders and those orders have to be followed even though the soldier may not agree with the cause. Again, that is part of the contractual agreement the soldier agrees to at signup. Further, though there is a proper chain of command process for contesting questionable orders that process cannot be taken lightly. We are reminded of the WWI story about 'Sergeant Alvin Cullum York’. He was a Tennessean that contested his being drafted into the Army as a conscientious objector based upon his religious conviction in God’s law: “Thou shalt not kill.” His contest was denied because the Christian Church he was a member of was not part of a formally organized religion; accordingly, he was compelled into service. In boot camp he was treated poorly by command because his record showed that he was a conscientious objector; but, when his proficient performance on the rifle range proved he was a dead-on shot, his base commander took an interest in him and offered him a rank advancement and training position. In an interview the commander sought to understand why he was a conscientious objector and discovered the righteous roots of the objection. Respectively, the commander (also a Christian) gave York a national history book to read and leave time to go and reconsider his objection offering to grant his objection if York did not change his mind. York went home to consider the matter while he read the history of this nation wherein Liberty was proven to be a right that required defense. York also found support for that concept in the scriptures and returned to the military base willing to continue forward. After training, York was sent to Europe with his troop and there he was responsible for almost single handedly capturing 132 of the enemy. When the commander asked how he accomplished the task he responded by relating the story, of how he obtained command and then virtually single handedly captured the enemy’s command post virtually securing the surrender of its entire command. The story related the necessity for York’s shooting several of the enemy in the process. However, they discovered York’s motive for shooting those men was to save lives of both his men and of those he captured. Respective to these events Sgt. York became one of the most decorated soldiers of WWI.

The point of this story is the fact that regardless of Alvin York’s personal beliefs, he still had to fight in the war and he was still to defensively kill other men. Though it should go without saying, most people are of the same mind, not to kill others, just as Alvin York was; but, wars cause death; and, defending against attacking enemies with lethal force is lawful and proper.

So, you might ask: “What does all of that have to do with your proposal and/or your question?”
It’s simple. Similar to the situation described in our article on Sovereignty, where we reviewed State statutes that require marriage licenses, though such laws remain on the books in most States, that does not mean those laws are lawful. However, so long as the people fail to lawfully contest and compel the removal of such unlawful laws their enforcement will remain constant. That being the case, though a soldier may be aware of acts of mutiny, sedition and/or espionage, if that soldier cannot provide evidence of those crimes against any individuals that may have been so involved, the soldier does not likely possess enough evidence to call into action a board of review. Further, if the evidence available to the soldier is common knowledge (such as is the case of the media disclosed events that surround September 11, 2001), but is not specific enough to identify the perpetrators of the respective action, then it is highly unlikely that reporting those events would qualify even under the codes you referenced.

However, if a soldier was aware of specific actions and/or events, including but not limited to, respective commands from superiors and they did not report those matters, they would come subject to those requirements for reporting the crimes.

Still, those that are so aware might fear for their lives if they did so come forth with such a report; given the level of the cover-up and the number of lives that have already been lost.

From what you provided, the only element we can see beyond those limitations that you might be referring to would be the proposal that a soldier might question command merely because it is apparent that the chain of command has potentially been compromised. In that case, a soldier could voice that opinion, but like Alvin York, he was still subject to the draft and had to go to war even though he objected. Like with him, a soldier might get poor treatment due to the report; but, such a report would not provide any means for the soldier to avoid compliance with command or suffer the respective consequences.

Again, that is because though people filling offices can (and often do go wrong) the office itself cannot; and it is the office that compels compliance with the command.

Thus, again, where the codes you referenced all reference: “If any person” [regardless of : “Earth shaking (proof) about the way civil government handled it (the events of 911); pursuant to title 18, part I, chapter 115 §2382 …submitted to a US district court” (italicized content added)], absent proof that specifically identifies one or more actors as the perpetrators of the acts in question, the soldier would have nothing to report. However, if the soldier did have evidence that specifically identified such an actor, then the soldier would be required to raise such charges to a rightful board of review.

For us to delve into the specifics necessary to help such a soldier learn what acts they could take if such an action were warranted would require Team Law beneficiary support.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Strawman
Registered
Posts: 1
Joined: Friday December 30th, 2005 12:30 pm MST

Re: Soldiers Using Law to Restore Constitutional Gov't.

Postby Strawman » Saturday February 18th, 2012 7:50 am MST

Ok, so if it would not be appropriate for a soldier to challenge command based upon something like the events of September 11, 2011, what about something way simpler to see that appears to be as a direct violation of the Constitution by the Commander in Chief; like, all of the evidence that indicates that Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States of America. Wouldn’t that provide a reasonable challenge a soldier could make; based upon the requirements of the mutiny, sedition and/or espionage acts ChristopherART5 presented?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Soldiers Using Law to Restore Constitutional Gov't.

Postby Admin » Saturday February 25th, 2012 6:54 pm MST

:h: Strawman
It would if the soldier could show personal knowledge of actual evidence of the actual violations so committed. In such a case, the soldier would, by oath, be required to report the evidence and request a review. However, that would not relieve the soldier from command responsibilities. Failing to follow command could make the soldier accountable for mutiny or sedition as well. Thus, though the concept is good, its application would likely be incredibly risky.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

User avatar
Citizensoldier
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 106
Joined: Thursday July 28th, 2005 5:34 pm MDT

Re: Soldiers Using Law to Restore Constitutional Gov't.

Postby Citizensoldier » Tuesday April 24th, 2012 8:54 am MDT

Instead of relying upon a soldier taking action against unlawful acts by those who claim to be "government", it is the individual American men and women who, not only have the authority, but also the duty to question the authority of those who "represent" us to do (or not do) certain acts as required by their respective office. In addition, our grand jury system empowers the people to investigate any suspected wrong doing within the venue of said grand jury; therefore, any grand jury member can investigate any matter they believe could be a violation of the law, such as the events on Sept. 11, 2001. American soldiers have a tough enough time trying to survive combat much less trying to survive the military justice system.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Soldiers Using Law to Restore Constitutional Gov't.

Postby Admin » Tuesday April 24th, 2012 9:39 am MDT

:h: Everyone:
Right on!
We could not agree more with Citizensoldier on this point. In fact, that is the whole point we continue to make at Team Law; that it is each and every one of us that is individually responsible to learn the law and apply it. All too often, we hear of people that have the chance to sit on juries and doing everything they can to avoid the opportune responsibility. Though we understand people not wanting to take the time necessary to so serve, we would never try to avoid such an opportunity.

Of course, it should go without saying that people are already required to know the law; thus, if that were the standard and those that were called for jury duty did all know the law, then they would not be able to dismiss any that do for that cause and thus eliminate everyone that will not act like a rubber stamp to whatever they are presented. The only way a competent jury system can fail is if the people in that system remain ignorant of the law.

Citizensoldier is well qualified to express his thoughts on this matter because he is one that takes those responsibilities of service and the necessity of learning and applying the law to heart; would that all people were so valiant.

Nonetheless, soldiers are not exempt from the responsibility of knowing and applying the law; though, while they are under military command they are not the ones burdened with the necessities of marshaling civil matters; they are full time soldiers operating under command. Thus, in most cases, unless a command directed towards them is unlawful or contrary to their oath, they are not allowed to question command. To do so can actually risk their lives and the lives of those around them. Further, it would likely be unwise for them to spend their time over-thinking such matters too much.

Virtually all of the problems of our society can be eliminated if the people will learn and follow the Standard for Review and apply it to learn the law, then with that education, learn to apply the law and so lawfully apply the law. It is just that simple and Team Law can help—it’s what we do.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Miscellaneous Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest